Nominations for the 2001–2004 Lockhart and Alumni Supported Professorships, the President's Award for Excellence in Academic Advising, the President's Award for Excellence in Part-time Teaching, and the Harter Mentoring Award. Nominations are due in the Provost's Office no later than 4:15 p.m. on Friday, 15 December 2000. Descriptions of the awards and their criteria can be found on pages 136–138 of the Bulletin.

The minutes of the committee’s previous meeting (10/24/00) were approved unanimously.

Our discussion of a revised SOFI form was to continue at this meeting. S. Muench was asked to provide a synopsis of her e-mail message that was relayed to the members of the Faculty Affairs Committee. She stated that assessment outcomes for faculty instruction varied in accordance with the form of the aforementioned assessment. And, in addition, she remarked on the usefulness of the Teaching Goals Inventory (TGI), explaining that it allows teachers to alter the importance of course goals.

M. Lima expressed the opinion that our current teacher evaluation form appears to be instruction-oriented, rather than goal-oriented. She agreed with S. Muench’s comment, stating that it might be better to develop an evaluation form that is adaptable to teacher goals.

J. Ballard added that previous Faculty Affairs Committees have struggled to create a "core set of items" for student ratings forms. She proceeded to suggest that we consider the hiring of a professional consultant to assist us in developing a revised faculty evaluation system.

The committee, as an entirety, seemed to agree. M. Lima echoed her colleague’s sentiment, stating that the daunting task of altering and improving our instructor evaluation system would be difficult for the committee to achieve. C. Faulkner concurred, noting that the previous Faculty Affairs Committee was unable to fulfill this charge.

S. Muench identified the relinquishing of local control as a drawback to J. Ballard’s proposition. If we were to enlist the assistance of a consultant, we might voluntarily cede our freedom to develop evaluation questions deemed applicable and appropriate by the committee.

J. Wrubel indicated that faculty members would be able to customize questions on a national instructor evaluation form. J. Ballard added that the concerns about using a national form for student ratings of faculty instruction are based on anecdotal information. C. Faulkner suggested that we consider extending the implementation of the current SOFI instrument until the committee, possibly with the assistance of a consultant, is able to produce a revised student rating form as part of a comprehensive faculty evaluation system.

J. Ballard stated that, in the creation of a comprehensive faculty evaluation system, we ought to consider integrating the ideas of "faculty evaluation" and "faculty development."

S. Muench voiced a concern regarding the evaluation of course content. She explained that content is rather difficult for inexperienced students to evaluate, and that our current system fails to address this concern.

J. Ballard concurred, noting that Arreola's book (Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System) introduced the possibility of a shared evaluation process, in which fellow colleagues would assess course management skills and course content, while students would assess the delivery of instruction.

P. Schacht further noted that the individual evaluation of faculty ought to merit attention equal to the current emphasis in the college on the assessment of programs and learning outcomes.

J. Ballard commented on the possibility of interference with other requirements for untenured faculty on FAC who may devote substantial energy and time to revise the SOFIs and the faculty evaluation system. This problem would be greater if we were to attempt to revise our entire faculty evaluation system with no outside professional assistance. She then reiterated that "we need a faculty evaluation expert."

M. Lima reintroduced the concept of a Teaching and Learning Center, emphasizing its importance and practicality. P. Schacht supported the advent of a Teaching and Learning Center, in that it could improve teaching and learning, but stated that the goal of improving teaching and learning is different from that of evaluating faculty. P. Schacht then suggested that our attendance at a national conference might improve our expertise in faculty evaluation. M. Lima disagreed, stating that "conferences can’t transform us into experts." P. Schacht conceded this point, but insisted that attendance at such a conference could at least help improve our decision-making abilities with regard to faculty evaluation.

J. Ballard suggested the possibility of hiring an instructor experienced in faculty assessment. This instructor could actually teach classes while serving as the consultant of our committee. After discussion among the FAC members, the motion was worded as follows:

"The Faculty Affairs Committee suggests that the administration hire a consultant to work for the faculty and students of the Faculty Affairs Committee in the development of a comprehensive faculty evaluation system, including a student rating form and a faculty development program."

P. Schacht seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously by the committee.

The committee then decided that this motion would be presented to the Senate Executive Committee and Provost Dixon for consideration before bringing it to the College Senate.

This meeting was a continuation of the Executive Committee meeting of 9 November, during which time had run out. The meeting was called to order by C.Leary at 12:50.

Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC). M.Lima reported that the FAC has been discussing the SOFI form and the evaluation of teaching in general. Members have been reading about models of comprehensive faculty evaluation and hearing reports from last year's seminar by Raoul Arreola, an expert in college teaching evaluation who was invited to campus by H.Waddy. FAC has decided that the problem is deeper than an inadequate form. The SOFI form has become a major vehicle in the evaluation of faculty performance at Geneseo, and many feel that other important pieces must be added to the picture. The Committee is wondering how to develop a comprehensive system for the evaluation of teaching at Geneseo. M.Lima circulated a document that said the following:

According to Raoul Arreola, a comprehensive evaluation system must use a variety of sources: peers, administrators, and students. The aspects of faculty performance being evaluated should be the ones that both the faculty and the administration believe ought to be evaluated. The "total teaching act" involves four, broad interactive dimensions: (1) content expertise; (2) instructional delivery skills and characteristics; (3) instructional design skills; (4) course management skills. Students are only able to evaluate some aspects of the "total teaching act."

Because individual evaluation of faculty deserves as much attention as assessment of programs and learning outcomes, we recommend that the Administration hire a consultant to work with/for FAC in the development of a comprehensive faculty evaluation system. Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system is a two-year project that requires a specialist in the field. Most FAC members do not feel qualified to tackle such an important enterprise. An outside consultant can play an important role in understanding the culture of the campus and overcoming possible faculty and administration resistance.

The committee is wondering how to bring about these changes. The members have considered a faculty survey, forming an ad-hoc committee and hiring a consultant. T.Bazzett asked if implementing new policies in this regard would require a Senate vote. C.Leary replied that Senate is mandated to review and approve the SOFI every three years and that the President is involved in the process. B.Glass said that almost everyone who had attended the seminar given by Raoul Arreola had been "converted" by the flexible system he suggests and wondered if implementing changes would require support from the Administration. A.-M.Reynolds suggested sending someone to department meetings. E.Wallace noted that while the SOFI had been originally designed for faculty feedback (a formative purpose), this intent had been somewhat lost during the past decade as the form has come to be used for summative evaluations. B.Glass and M.Lima agreed. M.Lima added that according to last year's speaker, this problem is common when the SOFI and the evaluation process are not carefully thought out. She said that student review should be only one criterion for how well people teach. A.-M.Reynolds asked for clarification on the process of the flexible, comprehensive evaluation. B.Glass gave an example in which service could count as little as 15% or as much as 30%. J.-L.Liu asked that the SOFI issue be distinguished from the tenure and renewal issue. M.Lima said that they are related. W.Pogozelski asked if the goal was to change the SOFI form or to change the tenure and renewal process. B.Glass said that implementation of a more comprehensive teacher evaluation system would affect both; there would probably be changes in the SOFI as well as the H1 and H2 renewal forms. A.-M. Reynolds said that she wondered if it would be a better strategy to attack one goal at a time. B.Glass said that approach had been tried before. C.Leary recommended that M.Lima should meet with the Provost and said that FAC could develop a resolution calling for a task force to address this issue. Then FAC could also develop a charge for this task force between now and May.

Chair's Report.C.Leary announced that J.Willey is retiring in December, leaving a vacancy on the Faculty Personnel Committee. As a result, the person who earned the next-highest number of votes, Bob O'Donnell, will be asked to step in. The Senate will vote on his confirmation.

The next issue discussed was web site access, an issue that had been raised at the last meeting. Currently, the Senate web page has four sections: the Bulletins, the Constitution, a list of criteria for excellence awards, and a membership list, all of which are accessible to anyone anywhere with a computer. B.Glass suggested that making the Bulletins accessible to all might be objectionable. E.Gillin concurred. T.Bazzett wondered if anyone might need access to Bulletins from home. C.Leary said that he was probably the only person who read on-line Bulletins and that they are useful for chasing down facts. E.Wallace pointed out that people outside the campus have read the paper copies of Bulletins and said that parents of students have called the school responding to various items in the Bulletin. However, he recommended that the Senate maintain its current system of just being careful about what goes into the record. J.L.Liu voiced concern about offense and gave an example from a previous Senate meeting where remarks were made that might be considered offensive by SUNY Central. W.Pogozelski noted that an acquaintance with a political job was finding that "enemies" were doing computer searches on him, looking for any information that could be used against him. B.Glass made a motion to restrict computer access to Bulletins to the campus. The motion passed with one nay.

C.Leary then asked for clarification on a reading of the Constitution that describes who is allowed to vote in campus elections. It was agreed that "term appointment part-time faculty" as written in the Constitution means full time temporary faculty and staff are not excluded from elections.

After our last meeting, the SAC members have been communicating through e-mail on the final design of the survey form on discrimination at Geneseo. Through e-mail voting, the final format was passed (17 in favor; 1 opposed). The SAC has thus concluded the task of designing this survey form and passed it along to the Sub-Committee on Campus Climate. Bob Owens from the President's Commission on Diversity and Community, and Zhiming Zhao from the Sub-Committee on Campus Climate, joined us at today's meeting. Bob Owens first explained the background and the function of the Commission on Diversity and Community. The Commission is divided into five sub-committees, one of which is the Sub-Committee on Campus Climate, chaired by Zhiming Zhao. This sub-committee is going to conduct extensive surveys on campus climate, and our questionnaire will be folded into both their quantitative and qualitative surveys. Zhiming Zhao further explained that the sub-committee wanted to jump start the task of data collection next spring. Asides from training students to conduct interviews with fellow students and staff members, they also need well-trained faculty members to conduct interviews with other faculty members. He invited members of the SAC to combine efforts with members of his Sub-Committee.

Tom Feeley raised the point that this sort of data collection should have a long-term development. The same survey form should be used in a few years, so that any change in campus climate can be measured. Bob Owens replied that the Commission on Diversity and Community planned to do this survey every three years.

Bob Owens invited further comments through e-mail. He thanked the SAC for the inputs on surveys. The SAC members thanked Bob Owens and Zhiming Zhao for their presence.

We then moved on to the issue of the College Union. Steven Brown reported on the sub-committee's (consisting of Johnnie Ferrell, Steven Brown and Jen Garvey) meeting with Kathy Trainor, Director of the College Union. The renovation of the Union is a capital budget project, which presently ranks third on the priority list of the Office of Student & Campus Life. According to Kathy Trainor, among the proposed renovation plans are the following:

To repair the Union Patio, with a possibility to have an enclosed path between the Union and Mary Jemison Hall.

To construct a multi-purpose Union Station, including a coffee house/cabaret in addition to a movie screening area.

To enhance the technological facilities of the Union ballroom, so that it can be used for presentations of all sorts. In particular, the lighting, sound, and video systems need to be redesigned.

(Possibly) to install a video screen on the railing of the second floor above the lobby. Having this screen for student associations' announcements and advertisements would alleviate the need for cloth banners, which pose potential fire hazards.

JeeLoo Liu asked if there was anything the SAC could do. Jen Garvey said that the SAC could write a letter of support. Steven Brown made a motion to use the SAC's name to write a letter to the Lamron. Jen Garvey seconded. The motion was passed unanimously. Steven Brown will draft the letter and we will come back next semester to continue with the issue.

Steven Brown also reported that the dining facility at the Union had been extended to 8 PM. Committee members were pleased with the effect of our meeting with Tom Bell from CAS.

The last remaining issue concerned faculty involvement. From the survey results gathered by the Office of Institutional Research, we observed that Geneseo had a very high rating in terms of students' satisfaction with faculty involvement. JeeLoo Liu asked if the SAC needed to do anything more. Tom Feeley made a motion to close the issue, and Steven Brown seconded. The motion was passed unanimously.

JeeLoo Liu asked if there was any new business. Tom Feeley commented that having all the meeting dates assigned at the beginning of this semester was very helpful. JeeLoo Liu promised to do the same next semester. She also asked student senators to try to gather more inputs from fellow students on what they would like to have the SAC do for them.

Meeting was called to order by T. Bazzett at 4:03. The agenda for the current meeting and the minutes from the previous meeting (10/24/00) were both accepted unanimously.

CDSC 320 - Revision of a course - Manual Language Systems. This proposal was tabled at the 10/24/00 meeting because of concerns regarding availability of the course for education majors with the proposed change (addition of "for majors only" denotation). L. House addressed the committee noting that she had been in contact with D. Showers since the last meeting. She assured the D. Showers (and the UCC) that education majors in need of CDSC 320 would not be shut out of the course with the proposed changes. There was no further discussion. The proposal passed unanimously.

ENGL 345 - New Course - Gay and Lesbian Literature. G. Drake explained to the Committee that this course had been offered previously as an experimental course with a very good enrollment and positive feedback from the students. There was some concern regarding what the Committee viewed as rather lenient prerequisite requirements (esp. "permission of instructor") for a 300 level course. G. Drake responded that interest could be widespread leading to the permission clause. Permission would not open the course to all students and that instructors would carefully assess ability of students before granting admission. There was no further discussion. The proposal passed unanimously.

PLSC 251 - Revision of a Course - addition of R/core credit to Modern Political Analysis. There was some confusion as to why UCC had received what appeared to be information intended for the R/core committee. There was also no clear indication (as a form) that the R/core committee had reviewed, voted on, or approved the course for R/core credit. S. Bailey assured the Committee that R/core was approved. Some committee members requested that future proposals passed by core committees include some attached form indicating this decision. The proposal passed unanimously.

ARTH 281 - Revision of a Course - T. Bazzett noted that there was some question as to whether this proposal represented a revision (as proposed) or a new course. In particular he pointed out that the justification for the revision included it's "replacing" the previous ARTH 281 and ARTH 282. He further questioned whether such a revision would require consideration by the M/core committee. Unsure of whether UCC could act on a proposal for such changes to a M/core course, without action by the M/core committee, he asked for a motion to table the proposal. A motion to table was made and passed unanimously.

ARTH 310 - New Course- Women in Art ARTH 386 - New Course - Theories of Art History - O. Nicodemi noted that both new course proposals represented thoughtful construction of courses, but expressed some concern regarding the ability of a limited ARTH faculty to offer two new courses in addition to what was already a seemingly full slate of offerings. Questions were then raised regarding the status of already established courses (e.g. would they be deleted, would they be offered less frequently). There were also questions regarding the desirability of these new courses for nonARTH majors. There was an unconfirmed sense that ARTH may be expanding their faculty in the near future. O. Nicodemi then questioned why the ARTH department would not wait until a new faculty member had been hired to then establish courses in their area of expertise. Without a representative from ARTH to address these concerns, O. Nicodemi made a motion to table the two new course proposals. The motion was approved unanimously.

Following action on all proposals listed on the agenda, D. Showers addressed the Committee in preparation of upcoming Secondary Education proposals. He gave a brief and informative summary of new regulations and requirements that were directing actions of the SOE and composition of proposals. He further explained that these requirements were not easily addressed in all cases, and that the SOE had compromised and re-tooled their program (in some cases considerably) in an effort to meet new requirements and to maintain an established standard of excellence within the department. He then fielded general questions and addressed concerns of the Committee members. He summarized by offering to personally answer any questions the Committee might have in the upcoming months.